Senator Tito Sotto suffered a personal loss with the death of his son. We understand his grief. What we cannot understand is why he chose to rely on an unknown blogger to explain his son’s death.

Right before asserting that he lost a child due to contraceptives, Sotto said he has scientific proof about the “damaging effects to children born from mothers who were using contraceptives prior to their pregnancy.” He then went on a lengthy explanation about gut imbalance, opportunistic flora, exposure of the fetus to toxins and zinc depletion.

His scientific proof was copied entirely and almost word-for-word from an article by a blogger calling herself “Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist.”

Actually, these contraceptives are not just detrimental to women and the unborn. They are scientifically proven to have damaging effects to children born from mothers who were using contraceptives prior to their pregnancy too. According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, the use of the pill also causes severe gut dysbiosis. What is worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change.1Gut imbalance brought on through use of the pill negatively impacts the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. As a result, even if a woman eats spectacularly well during pregnancy, if she has been taking oral contraceptives for a period of time beforehand, it is highly likely that she and her baby are not reaping the full benefits of all this healthy food as the lack of beneficial flora in her gut preclude this from occurring.2Pathogenic, opportunistic flora that take hold in the gut when the pill is used constantly produce toxic substances which are the by-products of their metabolism. These toxins leak into the woman’s bloodstream and they have the potential to cross the placenta. Therefore, gut dysbiosis exposes the fetus to toxins.3Not well known is also the fact that use of the pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called “the intelligence mineral” as it is intimately involved in mental development.4

1 According, to Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, use of other drugs such as the Pill also cause severe gut dybiosis. What’s worse, drug induced gut imbalance is especially intractable and resistant to treatment either with probiotics or diet change.

2 gut imbalance brought on through use of The Pill negatively impacts the ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. As a result, even if a women eats spectacularly well during pregnancy, if she has been taking oral contraceptives for a period of time beforehand, it is highly likely that she and her baby are not reaping the full benefits of all this healthy food as the lack of beneficial flora in her gut preclude this from occurring.

3 Pathogenic, opportunistic flora that take hold in the gut when The Pill is used constantly produce toxic substances which are the by-products of their metabolism. These toxins leak into the woman’s bloodstream and guess what, they have the potential to cross the placenta! Therefore, gut dysbiosis exposes the fetus to toxins

4 Not well known is the fact that use of The Pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called “the intelligence mineral” as it is intimately involved in mental development.

Sotto should know that Sarah has also written several articles against vaccination, with a summary piece entitled “Six Reasons To Say NO to Vaccination” having these two wild and reckless claims:

ALL Vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons

Fully Vaccinated Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know

Sotto should also have read Sarah’s disclaimer on her site which says: “The information on this website is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the advice provided by your doctor or other health care professional. … The nutritional and other information on this website are not intended to be and do not constitute health care or medical advice.”

Sotto ignored decades of studies and declarations by the World Health Organization and the Department of Health that contraceptives are safe, only to rely on an unknown blogger making wild claims. He even ignored the blogger’s disclaimer. Sotto’s reckless method of legislation is inexcusable.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions in this post do not necessarily represent the position of the Filipino Freethinkers.

[…] all started when parts of an anti-Reproductive Health Bill speech made by Sen. Sotto were revealed to be lifted from an article by Sarah Pope, an American health blogger. He denied it, implying that bloggers are […]

[…] Freethinkers publishes a piece by Alfredo R. Melgar, who points out that several stretches of Sotto’s August 13 speech were lifted “almost word-for-word” from the blog of a certain Sarah Pope, who writes as “The Healthy Home Economist.” Melgar […]

you probably think this way because it's a known fact for Presidential speeches right? well he might have, but the job of the speech writers is not what you're thinking like writing the entire speech for the speaker to "just read it". their job is proof reading and editing, so that Inconspicuous grammatical errors will be avoided.–it tarnishes credibility. the entire composition and idea should come from the speaker not the writer and it is very seldom they edit it for creativity. (i think presidential speeches are exception). so if sen sotto copied it verbatim, i don't think he submitted it for proof reading.

plagiarism is not the real issue, it is the source of his "scientific proof". either he cannot find a legitimate source to back up his claim, that's why he "copied" from a blog… or he cannot distinguished a legitimate source from a blog.

you are probably not in an academe or did not even have the benefit of education. Plagiarism is not a "simple issue" particularly when you're presenting arguments and facts, and especially when you're in a Law-making body.

Refresh my memory was Sotto defending his thesis? Authoring a bill? Or was he narrating findings which were obviously data handed to him by his staff. The core issue in plagiarism is to pass off someone's work, I.e. research, experiment, story, etc as yours. He didn't claim anything of that sort. BOYSent from my iPhone

I've just gone through Tito Sotto's second speech and discovered he lifted, verbatim, from three sources found online. See below:

"Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many belie
ve that under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed she wrote in her book Woman and the New Race: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for IPPF.
But there was even a darker side to Margaret Sanger: a side that IPPF people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in “eugenics.” Eugenics is defined as “the application of the laws of hereditary to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.” To Sanger this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered to be of “dysgenic stock” in order to create a race of superior intellectuals."

"The two activists met in December of 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control, population and the plight of women in India. At that time, Sanger staunchly advocated the global use of artificial contraceptives and, in order to make the acceptance of such contraceptives easier to the Indian populace, sought to make Gandhi an ally.
Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that “Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil.”

A study undertaken by Raymond Pearl, a John Hopkins professor and noted authority on this matter, wrote: “Those who practice contraception as part of their sex life, by their own admission, resort to criminally induced abortions about three times as often proportionately as do their comparable non-contraceptor contemporaries.” Also in a report prepared for the Royal Commission on Population in Great Britain found that the incidence of induced abortion as a percentage of all pregnancies was nine times higher for women using contraceptives than for women not using birth control.

if you are as rich as Sotto, then nothing to worry about spending money to raise a dozen of kids, but the reality is many cannot afford to do so… the fact is that many “christians” use contraceptive.. sometimes, we refuse to see what’s going on.. and we all suffer.. no wonder.. take a good look at our country, no wonder we are what we are now, im not surprise.. and i accept the reality that are like this…

Thanks for uncovering the good Senator’s ethical lapse, to take the words of another and palm them off as his own. Is this kind of cheating around the edges common within the Catholic value book, I’m wondering.

and more that you can try and dispute. apparently Helen Gamboa took this OC labeled as "Diane 35 ED" and this is what is says in the MEDICAL LITERATURE of the product itself… you may learn something from this intelligent thinkers!
"http://www.mydr.com.au/medicines/cmis/diane-35-ed-tablets&quot;
"Do not take this medicine if you are pregnant or think you might be pregnant. It may affect your developing baby if you take it during pregnancy."
"Do not breast-feed if you are taking this medicine.
The active ingredient in Diane-35 ED passes into breast milk and there is a possibility that your baby may be affected."

//"Do not take this medicine if you are pregnant or think you might be pregnant. It may affect your developing baby if you take it during pregnancy."
"Do not breast-feed if you are taking this medicine.
The active ingredient in Diane-35 ED passes into breast milk and there is a possibility that your baby may be affected." //

Kaya nga contraceptives eh – you're supposed to take them BEFORE you become pregnant.

The message was loud and clear – the messenger just fucked up the delivery and timing 🙂

So you do admit to contraceptive failure! Thank you. but that wasn't what we were talking about was it? your changing the issue. The issue was Sen Sotto's wife's pregnancy was a result of contraceptive failure which resulted possibly in the malformation and death of his son. That was the issue which you agreed could have happened. When a person has breakthrough pregnancy, she is not aware that she is pregnant until symptoms appear and during that time, she could still be taking the OCP… that is what the issue is! I must have repeated it 10 times and none of you still get it!

1. even if she had been pregnant, there is still no proof that contraceptives made the child malformed. she could have been smoking or drinking, two things that have been proven to cause malformation in children while in the womb. plus this happened more than 3 decades ago, so no one knows the exact situation.
2. all contraceptives have a chance of failing, even natural contraception endorsed by the catholic church.

1. because it bears repeating because you can't seem to get it in your head. your arguments are repetitive, have been repeatedly answered and debunked, but still you come back for more. seems like you have a masochistic streak in you, dick.
2. and you're really acting immature for a supposedly good catholic. name calling, starting fights. read your bible more. read the teachings of christ. christ would be disappointed in you, dick.
3. you come to this site again and again and again because you're self righteous, because your arrogant, and it shows. you think that intelligence is a bad thing? you mock the people here for using their brains to think instead of just accepting your dogma. so stop arguing because it uses intelligence. o wait, your arguments suck. you sound like a boy whining when he doesn't get the toy he wants, dick.

Once again the intelligent people are hitting the messenger and not the message. for heavens sake, hit the message! Does it have some credence or not, that is the critical question and not who said it!

The importance to human health of the intestinal microflora has been more widely recognized in recent years. Ever-increasing environmental challenges (antibiotics, oral contraceptives, food additives) have contributed to the greater prevalence of disharmony in the ecology of the intestines (intestinal dysbiosis). The consequences of this appear to extend beyond the immediately obvious gastro-intestinal distress; evidence points to the influence of nutrient intake, intestinal permeability, and changes in levels of essential fatty acids as the root cause of a number of systemic disorders. Other studies have implicated intestinal candidiasis as a basis for conditions ranging from recurrent infections and immune breakdown to chronic fatigue. Patients who ferment dietary carbohydrate to ethanol can be identified using a simple clinical test which, when positive, may be strongly suggestive of yeast overgrowth.

“Then show us the peer-reviews journals that actually show these methods do work.”I dont have to show you squat I am not trying to defend it's veracity as a well made study. the study quoted by Sotto isn't a even an experimental one, it's descriptive! It is well referenced. it is published by Elsevier, the author is at least a credentialed scientist. <a href="http://www.biolab.co.uk/http://www.biolab.co.uk/<br />That's all I need to prove my case.

"Sotto ignored decades of studies and declarations by the World Health Organization and the Department of Health that contraceptives are safe,"

There is no data that says that OC's are 100% safe. For you intelligent people's digestion from MIMS U.K please do not blame me if you choke:
What are the risks of taking combined hormonal contraceptives?

Serious side effects, such as a blood clot that could cause a stroke or heart attack, are rare.

Combined hormonal contraceptives are available only on prescription to ensure that they are only given to those women for whom they are suitable. The risks are greater for some women and medical advice should be given to those women who may not be able to take the pill or use the patch or ring – these include women with diabetes or high blood pressure, women who are significantly overweight, women who smoke and women who have a close family history of stroke or heart attacks at an early age. The risks associated with using combined hormonal contraceptives increase with age and so a woman over 35 who also smokes may be advised against taking the pill or using the patch or ring.

There is research to show that women taking the combined contraceptive pill may be at an increased risk of breast cancer; this risk is thought to disappear gradually over the 10 years after stopping the pill.

Some research has linked the pill with an increased risk of cervical cancer but other research has not proved this. It is thought that this increased risk may be explained by the fact that women taking the pill who practise unprotected sex (ie, do not use condoms) are at a greater risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

There is no evidence to date to suggest that using the combined hormonal contraceptive patch or ring is, in any aspect, safer than taking the combined hormonal contraceptive pill.

//There is research to show that women taking the combined contraceptive pill may be at an increased risk of breast cancer; this risk is thought to disappear gradually over the 10 years after stopping the pill.

Some research has linked the pill with an increased risk of cervical cancer but other research has not proved this. It is thought that this increased risk may be explained by the fact that women taking the pill who practise unprotected sex (ie, do not use condoms) are at a greater risk of sexually transmitted diseases. //

In short, refer to your doctor regarding the specific benefits and drawbacks of using specific contraceptives, which I might add are covered as part of the RH Bill's education program.

As a dentist yourself dickie, you should know all about how it is YOUR responsibility to prescribe meds for your patients, depending on their risks and benefits and the patient's lifestyle.

So my question is, why are you so against a bill that'd implement measure to give women and men the ability to make informed choices?

Helloooo… the article by the intelligent author Melgar claims that contraceptives are safe and claims that there are evidence that they are unsafe did you read HIS article? “Sotto ignored decades of studies and declarations by the World Health Organization and the Department of Health that contraceptives are safe,”I just disproved that statement and that from a pharmaceutical provider!Answer me this, you mean we need a bill like this to inform people of their choices? Are you aware that family planning seminars are on-going and people are being informed of their choices already. You saying we cannot integrate an information program with our current bureaucratic infrastructure?

Contraceptives are in the core list of WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines. A type of pill was in the list since 1977, another added in 1979, IUDs and condoms in 1988, and so on. WHO's definition: "The core list presents a list of minimum medicine needs for a basic health‐care system, listing the most efficacious, safe and cost‐effective medicines for priority conditions. Priority conditions are selected on the basis of current and estimated future public health relevance, and potential for safe and cost‐effective treatment." http://www.who.int/selection_medicines/list/en/

Nope not changing topics I don't accept the definition that OCP's as used for preventing pregnancies are medicines. By definition medicines are used as therapeutic drugs. Therapeutic implies curing something. Pregnancy is not a disease therefor OCP's have no inherent therapeutic value as it pertains to pregnancy.Sent from my iPhone

Ok, you are changing topic. WHO and our laws do not support your opinion about what medicines are. Our Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act: (RA3720) "'Drug' means (1) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Momeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, of official National Formulary or any supplement to any of them; and (2) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (3) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals; and (4) articles intended for use as component of any articles specified in clauses (1), (2), or (3), but does not include devices or their components, parts, or accessories." http://www.fda.gov.ph/List%20of%20Laws%20and%20Re…

That still does not change the fact that OCP's as it is used to prevent conception is not a form if therapy. Therapy implies curing or applied to treatment of a disorder or disease. It is a drug sure but it is not therapeutic as it pertains to pregnancy which is the point I am driving at. I am talking function and purpose your talking form.Sent from my iPhone

Sorry you are wrong. It is a drug yes it is not essential medicine as it specifically pertains to pregnancy:It does not cure, mitigate, treat, diagnose or prevent any disease because pregnancy is not a disease. Are you saying that pregnancy is a disease?Sent from my iPhone

"it is not essential medicine"
You are arguing that the WHO is wrong. Any authority you can cite?
"It does not cure, mitigate, treat, diagnose or prevent any disease"
You are arguing that our FDA is wrong. OCPs are regulated drugs/medicines, based on our laws. You want them deregulated, like toothpaste perhaps?
"Are you saying that pregnancy is a disease?"
Of course not.

"It does not cure, mitigate, treat, diagnose or prevent any disease"
You are arguing that our FDA is wrong. OCPs are regulated drugs/medicines, based on our laws. You want them deregulated, like toothpaste perhaps?

Let me be clear: OCP's are classified as medicines because they have medical uses in controlling hormonal imbalance disorders like in cases of endometrial cysts, irregular menses or acne due to hormonal imbalance… that is the reason for their therapeutic use! It has absolutely no therapeutic use or value in pregnancy per-se because it prevents pregnancy only. It does not help in anyway and in fact have risks and side effects that are elevated in certain women. The singular point is if we apply OCp's to pregnancy per se, it is of not therapeutic value and hence, risk vs benefit is nonexistent, it is all risk with no medical benefit.

From MIMS PH – Indications of an OCP: "Contraception in women and also for menstrual disorders eg, dysmenorrhea, premenstrual syndrome and menorrhagia."
Conclusion: MIMS, which you cited in your 1st post, does not support your narrow views about OCPs.

Is the RHBill about treatment of medical disorders or is it about preventing pregnancy? The issue is preventing pregnancy. It's other medical uses is not even an issue so don't change the subject! You are obviously naive of the fact that these definitions are premised on the false fact that pregnancy is a disease which it is not. The US supreme court stupidly legalized abortion but murder is a crime in the US it does not mean that abortion is not murder… they instead changed the definition of when life begins arbitrarily. Use your God- given common sense or if you're an atheist use you monkey-given common sense!

Let me see if I can make this so you'll understand: OCP's are listed as therapeutic medications because they have other uses in the treatment of hormonal disorders… Accepted, but in pregnancy it cannot be considered therapy because pregnancy is not a disease. Listings do not subhead drugs based on its applied uses. Unless you can show me that pregnancy is a disease it stands. You are probably looking at this from a purely laymans point of view and I would excuse you for that. Good day.Sent from my iPhone

Progestin-only OCPs have no other use but as a contraceptive. Yet it is a registered medicine. I think you can't cite anything, other than yourself, to back-up your claims and definitions.
Our country's definition of therapeutic medicine: see my earlier citation of RA3720.

Idiot… it provides remedy and short term therapy for anxiety related disorders. it provides the venue for procedures to be performed to people who would otherwise be too anxious if done consciously. aral ka muna okay!

But the RHBill is not about endometriosis and that is not what we are talking about! it's about it working as a contraceptive which is to block pregnancy which is not a disease. WE are not talking about its other valid medical uses which are very acceptable even by Catholics. The problem with you is you don't know when to quit.

Nothing is 100% safe, even by drinking huge amounts of water at a time can damage your liver. Some are allergic to certain foods as some people are allergic to certain fabrics.

No group can declare that something is 100% safe as the universe can prove them wrong in second and they'll be legally liable or there'd be a sort of backlash against them.

This is why doctors ask for histories of allergies and sickness before prescribing medicine. This is also the reason they tell you to stop taking the medicine and schedule a check up if you feel side effects after taking certain medicines.

That's a fallacious argument:1. water is not a drug.2. we are here talking about “therapeutic” doses, not overdoses3. you cannot deduce from a patient's history whether they will develop breast cancer with contraceptive use or not. that is why all studies are retrospective.4. Pregnancy is not a disease5. Therapeutic decision making is based on risk vs benefit. In cases of disease, the therapeutic benefit of a certain drug can far outweigh its potential risk as in Cancer Chemotherapy. In the case of Oral Contraceptives, there is no disease being treated therefor the risk benefit ratio is non-existent, it is only risk!6. Oral Contraceptives are listed in the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) as Group 1 Human Carcinogens in:a. Liverb. Breastc. Cervixhere don't take my word for it: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdfhttp://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Table4.pdfthey are classified in the same category as Asbestos, benzene, tobacco and gamma radiation!Good day!

1) I don't think you understood the first part. What I'm saying is anything used improperly can be dangerous, even if it is the pure, clean, naturally occurring water.

2) Everyone's bodies are different from one another, what works for you may not work for me, if a substance is not accepted by your body at certain amounts, you can expect some side effects.

3) This is true, that's why there's also the option to NOT use oral contraceptives. Also, there's no conclusive study regarding the topic and some results show that risks of cervical cancer and breast cancer decline to normal levels after stopping the use of birth control

4) It's not a disease but women can still die from complications from pregnancies, sometimes only because their bodies cannot handle the stress of child birth.

5) Again, pregnancy is not a disease but people can still die from pregnancies. Disease or not, death is still death.

6) Again, there's an option to not take oral contraceptives if you do not like the risk of cancer just like there's an option to not smoke.

1. You didn't get my point that OCP's even if used properly are Carcinogenic! You can't compare a misuse of one totally different substance, ie. water or any other thing for that matter, with proper use of OCP's and claim the analogy to be true. It's a fallacious analogy! Are you saying that potable clean water used properly is carcinogenic?2. Everyone's body is different that is why we seek prudence in the action of the bill to institutionalize contraceptives. It's bad enough we do not have enough health practitioners how is the specific monitoring of each patient going to be done. It can't and won't happen not even with the budget or provisions of the bill.3. This is pretty conclusive: OCP's are classified as Carcinogenic as per IARC at the same grouping as Asbestos, Benzene, tobacco etc… The link below shows the sites in humans where OCP's may cause cancer… Liver, Cervix and Breasthttp://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Table4.pdf4. You mean to tell me that we need an RHBILL to give our mothers a change at surviving pregnancy? You mean we absolutely have no structure in place that we can utilize due this purpose apart from this bill? If this Bill is but passed do you mean to say our hands are tied to doing nothing for maternal and natal care? Really?5. Do people die from being pregnant or from medical conditions that complicate pregnancy? You make it sound as though it is the getting pregnant that kills! Nope! Why can't this government address the management of medical complications rather than preventing pregnancies itself? Why does this government need to make an entire new law just for this?6. That option is currently available to people even without the bill. Go to a drugstore and you'll find OCP'S there which you are free to buy. The choice us there it's just not free!Sent from my iPhone

//1. You didn't get my point that OCP's even if used properly are Carcinogenic! You can't compare a misuse of one totally different substance, ie. water or any other thing for that matter, with proper use of OCP's and claim the analogy to be true. It's a fallacious analogy! Are you saying that potable clean water used properly is carcinogenic?
//

//The lists themselves say nothing about how likely it is that an agent will cause cancer. Carcinogens do not cause cancer at all times, under all circumstances. Some may only be carcinogenic if a person is exposed in a certain way (for example, swallowing it as opposed to touching it). Some may only cause cancer in people who have a certain genetic makeup. Some of these agents may lead to cancer after only a very small exposure, while others might require intense exposure over many years. Again, you should refer to the agencies' reports for specifics.

Even if a substance or exposure is known or suspected to cause cancer, this does not necessarily mean that it can or should be avoided at all costs. For example, exposure to ionizing radiation is known to cause cancer, with increased risks even at low levels of exposure. Yet there is no way to completely prevent exposure to natural sources of radiation such as cosmic radiation from the sun or radon in soil. These lists also include many commonly used medicines, particularly some hormones and drugs used to treat cancer. For example, tamoxifen increases the risk of certain kinds of uterine cancer but can be very useful in treating some breast cancers, which may be more important for some women. If you have questions about a medicine that appears on one of these lists, be sure to ask your doctor.//

//ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES INCREASE RISK OF SOME CANCERS AND DECREASE RISK OF OTHERS

Use of OC's increases risk of breast, cervix and liver cancer…
There is a small increase in the risk of breast cancer in current and recent users of oral contraceptives. However, ten years after cessation of use, the risk appears to be similar to that in never-users. The risk of cervical cancer increases with duration of use of combined oral contraceptives. The risk of hepatocellular carcinoma is increased in long-term users of combined oral contraceptives in populations with low prevalences of hepatitis B infection and chronic liver disease – two major causes of human liver cancer.

… but decreases risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer
In contrast, the risks of endometrial and ovarian cancer are consistently decreased in women who used combined oral contraceptives. The reduction is generally greater with longer duration of use, and some reduction persists at least 15 years after cessation of use.

More work needed to assess risks and benefits
Because use of combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives increases some cancer risks and decreases risk of some other forms of cancer , it is possible that the overall net public health outcome may be beneficial, but a rigorous analysis is required to demonstrate this. This should be done on a country-by-country basis and also consider the effects on non-malignant diseases.//

It does not prevent pain it prevents nerve transmission so that we can do procedures that need dental and medical attention. In other words it is a therapeutic adjunct something that OCP's are not as it relates to pregnancy. Now it appears that you are caught in a tight spot and hence are forcing an argument in a very skewed manner with a person whose expertise in this chosen field is trigeminal neurophysiology. So may I suggest that rather than always having to remove your foot out of your mouth that you just stop embarrassing yourself.Sent from my iPhone

o ito pa… Lidocaine may be curative in cases where neuropathic pain triggers can be sufficiently blocked. I have used this also as a diagnostic adjunct in determining nerve involvement in cases of Trigeminal Neuralgia… hence it has some curative value but is mainly a therapeutic adjunct.

Consider risks and benefits of hormonal products and use only under careful medical supervision
This new information about cancer risks – and also protection against cancer in the case of oral contraceptives – makes it important that each woman who uses these hormonal products discuss the risks and benefits with her doctor, taking into consideration her personal circumstances and family history of cancer and other diseases.//

Once again, the issue is about doctors providing the right information to their patients, and helping them choose the ideal meds for their circumstances.

Press Release
A press release, news release, media release, press statement or video release is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media

Disclaimer
noun
1.
the act of disclaiming; the renouncing, repudiating, or denying of a claim; disavowal.
2.
a person who disclaims.
3.
a statement, document, or assertion that disclaims responsibility, affiliation, etc.; disavowal; denial.

Replying to this: http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/08/15/sottos…
I said progestin-only OCPs (oral contraceptive pills), not progestins in general or in combination with an estrogen (which is the topic of the article you cited). Look it up in your local MIMS: lynestrenol, desogestrel. Indication: Contraception, nothing else. I'm not talking about off-label use. The point is why the medicine was registered in the first place–the therapeutic value/category, required by our registration regulations.

Your claim is clearly false: "OCP's are classified as medicines because they have medical uses in controlling hormonal imbalance disorders…." OCPs are classified as medicines because contraception is considered as a therapeutic category by our local regulations and by the WHO.

In essence, you are claiming that contraception is not therapeutic. Cite just one medicines classification/registration authority or country to back-up your claim. Your personal definition of what is therapeutic is simply that, a personal definition, which you can of course live by.

You idiot, the original paper of that is referenced to a doctor in England who writes about dysbiosis. McBride merely takes that study and publicizes that in her own blog. Do you even read the articles I send you?